Donald Trump

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

the present tariffs have been in place quite a while, there will be no change as it will hurt the US as much as it will hurt the E.U. trump only came up with this ‘thought’ as a knee jerk reaction because Germany said they would retaliate against steel tariffs. One of the reasons for the tariff imbalance is that US manufacturers build abroad and ship back to the US, plus VW, BMW, Mercedes have many plants in the US employing many workers, exporting all over the world even back to Germany and contributing massively to the US economy, therefore a simplistic US v Germany tariff on one product/sector comparison is pointless

I don't care if the present EU tariffs have been in place for a while, it's still protectionism.

Comparing tariffs on the same products is the best way to make sensible comparisons otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

Sorry but please explain why US manufacturers making cars abroad and shipping back to the US is a reason for the tariff imbalance.

The cynical side of me says you want to derail the Trump thread in favour of a EU bashing thread. Open a new thread on tariffs/free trade/protectionism and I may play.

If we are going to have an informed debate about...

Completely missing the point of the thread.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

the present tariffs have been in place quite a while, there will be no change as it will hurt the US as much as it will hurt the E.U. trump only came up with this ‘thought’ as a knee jerk reaction because Germany said they would retaliate against steel tariffs. One of the reasons for the tariff imbalance is that US manufacturers build abroad and ship back to the US, plus VW, BMW, Mercedes have many plants in the US employing many workers, exporting all over the world even back to Germany and contributing massively to the US economy, therefore a simplistic US v Germany tariff on one product/sector comparison is pointless

I don't care if the present EU tariffs have been in place for a while, it's still protectionism.

Comparing tariffs on the same products is the best way to make sensible comparisons otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

Sorry but please explain why US manufacturers making cars abroad and shipping back to the US is a reason for the tariff imbalance.

The cynical side of me says you want to derail the Trump thread in favour of a EU bashing thread. Open a new thread on tariffs/free trade/protectionism and I may play.

If we are going to have an informed debate about protectionism that involves likely actions by both US and EU, the current positions of both parties for the potentially affected sectors - both in relative and absolute terms - are relevant.

TTIP would have cut tariffs on cars to zero.

You can't look at the tariffs on cars in isolation - If you want the EU to reduce the tariffs on cars from 10%, they would probably want the USA to reduce the tariffs on trucks from 25%. Unless you are going to go down the route New Zealand attempted and unilaterally reduce tariffs.

Neither side is blameless but the biggest volumes and total values are in cars.

Perhaps because the biggest tariff is on trucks. In the USA, 6.3 million cars sold in 2017, 11.1 million light trucks. There's a reason that the top three selling vehicles in the USA are pick ups made by Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler.

kingstongraham

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Anyway, Trump thread.

Sam Nunberg????

that's a meltdown

And meanwhile...

Trump thought he'd talked to North Korea, and it turned out he spoke to South Korea.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Anybody heard the news -- someone has shot themselves on the lawn of the white house -- sadly it wasn't Donald -- wonder if he'll think again about bringing in gun control.

He doesn’t have the capacity to think, he’s too busy trying to destroy world trade by putting tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars from the rest of the world, he’s gone rogue

I think you have a point about his thought process.

However, given that the US levies import duty of 2.5% on cars imported from outside the USA, whereas the EU levies import duty of 10% on cars imported outside the EU, what do you reckon does that say about EU thinking?

Also purely based on the facts and taking Trump out of this for a minute, the US has a point here. Not that I advocate the US hiking car import duty - it is the EU that should cut their car import duty rate and stop being so protectionist.

Would also be useful to look at the facts related to steel.

Managing trade tariffs is a fine diplomatic, political and economic balancing act, something which the estate agent is incapable of. These things are best handled behind closed doors with negotiations between relevant departments of countries involved, not on Tw@tter. Canada, Germany and others do not want to look weak in front of their electorate. He is Forkin with things big time and has no idea of the repercussions. Share prices down massively since Jan, in a large part down to his meddling.

I don't disagree about his thought processes (or lack of), or method of communications.

But the fact remains that the EU has a far more protectionist trade policy in place than the US on cars, with duties 4 times higher. What are your thoughts on that?

Cars are really cheap in the states - it's not a level playing field. Cheapest Fiesta you can get in the states is $14800 dollars - equivalent to £10700 - cheapest in UK is £13700. If we didn't have protectionist policies we'd be swamped with Chrysler Avengers.

Assuming we wanted to buy them...

There are quite a few cars sold in the UK today that are manufactured outside of the UK/EU and generally they still manage to compete on price, but I don't see you complaining about them. Is that because they are not American?

What an odd thing to say! I really don't think you've understood a word I said. I'm not sure you've understood a word you said either!

Just to make exactly the same point again; my assumption is that the disparity in tariffs is to ensure that imports do compete on a level playing field.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

the present tariffs have been in place quite a while, there will be no change as it will hurt the US as much as it will hurt the E.U. trump only came up with this ‘thought’ as a knee jerk reaction because Germany said they would retaliate against steel tariffs. One of the reasons for the tariff imbalance is that US manufacturers build abroad and ship back to the US, plus VW, BMW, Mercedes have many plants in the US employing many workers, exporting all over the world even back to Germany and contributing massively to the US economy, therefore a simplistic US v Germany tariff on one product/sector comparison is pointless

I don't care if the present EU tariffs have been in place for a while, it's still protectionism.

Comparing tariffs on the same products is the best way to make sensible comparisons otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

Sorry but please explain why US manufacturers making cars abroad and shipping back to the US is a reason for the tariff imbalance.

The cynical side of me says you want to derail the Trump thread in favour of a EU bashing thread. Open a new thread on tariffs/free trade/protectionism and I may play.

If we are going to have an informed debate about protectionism that involves likely actions by both US and EU, the current positions of both parties for the potentially affected sectors - both in relative and absolute terms - are relevant.

TTIP would have cut tariffs on cars to zero.

You can't look at the tariffs on cars in isolation - If you want the EU to reduce the tariffs on cars from 10%, they would probably want the USA to reduce the tariffs on trucks from 25%. Unless you are going to go down the route New Zealand attempted and unilaterally reduce tariffs.

Neither side is blameless but the biggest volumes and total values are in cars.

Perhaps because the biggest tariff is on trucks. In the USA, 6.3 million cars sold in 2017, 11.1 million light trucks. There's a reason that the top three selling vehicles in the USA are pick ups made by Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler.

all very well but I'm talking about imported/exported vehicles. Most of the US trucks are for the domestic market so irrelevant to the tariff discussion.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Anybody heard the news -- someone has shot themselves on the lawn of the white house -- sadly it wasn't Donald -- wonder if he'll think again about bringing in gun control.

He doesn’t have the capacity to think, he’s too busy trying to destroy world trade by putting tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars from the rest of the world, he’s gone rogue

I think you have a point about his thought process.

However, given that the US levies import duty of 2.5% on cars imported from outside the USA, whereas the EU levies import duty of 10% on cars imported outside the EU, what do you reckon does that say about EU thinking?

Also purely based on the facts and taking Trump out of this for a minute, the US has a point here. Not that I advocate the US hiking car import duty - it is the EU that should cut their car import duty rate and stop being so protectionist.

Would also be useful to look at the facts related to steel.

Managing trade tariffs is a fine diplomatic, political and economic balancing act, something which the estate agent is incapable of. These things are best handled behind closed doors with negotiations between relevant departments of countries involved, not on Tw@tter. Canada, Germany and others do not want to look weak in front of their electorate. He is Forkin with things big time and has no idea of the repercussions. Share prices down massively since Jan, in a large part down to his meddling.

I don't disagree about his thought processes (or lack of), or method of communications.

But the fact remains that the EU has a far more protectionist trade policy in place than the US on cars, with duties 4 times higher. What are your thoughts on that?

Cars are really cheap in the states - it's not a level playing field. Cheapest Fiesta you can get in the states is $14800 dollars - equivalent to £10700 - cheapest in UK is £13700. If we didn't have protectionist policies we'd be swamped with Chrysler Avengers.

Assuming we wanted to buy them...

There are quite a few cars sold in the UK today that are manufactured outside of the UK/EU and generally they still manage to compete on price, but I don't see you complaining about them. Is that because they are not American?

What an odd thing to say! I really don't think you've understood a word I said. I'm not sure you've understood a word you said either!

Just to make exactly the same point again; my assumption is that the disparity in tariffs is to ensure that imports do compete on a level playing field.

I would have understood what you said if you'd expressed it clearly first time round.

Now you've clarified what you meant, seems as if the 'level playing field' you're referring to is making sure that countries that can manufacture more efficiently/cheaply than in the EU are penalised by higher tariffs. How would that apply to other non-EU countries who maybe cannot manufacture as cheaply as in the US but still have 10% import duty on their products?

So it sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand the issue here.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

I would have understood what you said if you'd expressed it clearly first time round.

Now you've clarified what you meant, seems as if the 'level playing field' you're referring to is making sure that countries that can manufacture more efficiently/cheaply than in the EU are penalised by higher tariffs. How would that apply to other non-EU countries who maybe cannot manufacture as cheaply as in the US but still have 10% import duty on their products?

So it sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand the issue here.

I did express it clearly enough the first time round - you're an intelligent bloke and I'm not going to patronise you by using play school language.

But your response seems to be deliberately inflammatory. America probably can manufacture more cheaply than Europe - it has the raw materials and the domestic market that we don't; that advantage is no reason why European manufacturers should let the US car industry effectively render them uneconomic. Hence the need for tariffs. But you know this perfectly well.

And you also know perfectly well that any Non EU country that could not manufacture as cheaply as the US probably would /should (by my logic - I don't pretend to know everything) have a different import duty.

And of course, your comment is exactly what applies to EU exports to the US. A base Jaguar XF costs £32k in the UK and $48k (£35k) in the US. Not such a big margin as the Fiesta one but the point is that European cars are relatively expensive in the US.

It's complicated - everything affects everything else. That seems to be the fundamental thing that the cake and eat it Brexit mentality seems not to understand.

I wish you'd be more pleasant when you argue. There's not much pro Brexit comment on here worth debating over apart from yours but you ruin it all by being deliberately disingenuous.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

the present tariffs have been in place quite a while, there will be no change as it will hurt the US as much as it will hurt the E.U. trump only came up with this ‘thought’ as a knee jerk reaction because Germany said they would retaliate against steel tariffs. One of the reasons for the tariff imbalance is that US manufacturers build abroad and ship back to the US, plus VW, BMW, Mercedes have many plants in the US employing many workers, exporting all over the world even back to Germany and contributing massively to the US economy, therefore a simplistic US v Germany tariff on one product/sector comparison is pointless

I don't care if the present EU tariffs have been in place for a while, it's still protectionism.

Comparing tariffs on the same products is the best way to make sensible comparisons otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

Sorry but please explain why US manufacturers making cars abroad and shipping back to the US is a reason for the tariff imbalance.

The cynical side of me says you want to derail the Trump thread in favour of a EU bashing thread. Open a new thread on tariffs/free trade/protectionism and I may play.

If we are going to have an informed debate about protectionism that involves likely actions by both US and EU, the current positions of both parties for the potentially affected sectors - both in relative and absolute terms - are relevant.

TTIP would have cut tariffs on cars to zero.

You can't look at the tariffs on cars in isolation - If you want the EU to reduce the tariffs on cars from 10%, they would probably want the USA to reduce the tariffs on trucks from 25%. Unless you are going to go down the route New Zealand attempted and unilaterally reduce tariffs.

Neither side is blameless but the biggest volumes and total values are in cars.

Perhaps because the biggest tariff is on trucks. In the USA, 6.3 million cars sold in 2017, 11.1 million light trucks. There's a reason that the top three selling vehicles in the USA are pick ups made by Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler.

all very well but I'm talking about imported/exported vehicles. Most of the US trucks are for the domestic market so irrelevant to the tariff discussion.

The fact that the light trucks bought in the US are all domestically produced is very relevant to the tariff discussion. Imported vehicles cannot compete after a 25% tariff, which is the whole point of the tariff. Saying that tariff is not important because there are not many imports, is missing the point a bit.

kingstongraham

Anyway, more Nunberg here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

An aside in there...

Like, why is Sarah Huckabee Sanders “a slob”?

Because she does Trump’s dirty business.

I see, so you’re not making a judgment about her appearance, you’re talking about her personality?

Yeah, I’m not making a judgment about her terrible appearance, because that would be very rude and not politically correct. Why would I want to do that?

bianchimoon

KingstonGraham wrote:

Anyway, more Nunberg here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

An aside in there...

Like, why is Sarah Huckabee Sanders “a slob”?

Because she does Trump’s dirty business.

I see, so you’re not making a judgment about her appearance, you’re talking about her personality?

Yeah, I’m not making a judgment about her terrible appearance, because that would be very rude and not politically correct. Why would I want to do that?

Nunberg now saying he will cooperate with Mueller (as if he had any choice), his arguments that he wants to 'protect' Roger Stone, because he's like family just make Stone sound even guiltier

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Anyway, more Nunberg here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

An aside in there...

Like, why is Sarah Huckabee Sanders “a slob”?

Because she does Trump’s dirty business.

I see, so you’re not making a judgment about her appearance, you’re talking about her personality?

Yeah, I’m not making a judgment about her terrible appearance, because that would be very rude and not politically correct. Why would I want to do that?

Nunberg now saying he will cooperate with Mueller (as if he had any choice), his arguments that he wants to 'protect' Roger Stone, because he's like family just make Stone sound even guiltier

Sly that family Stone.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I would have understood what you said if you'd expressed it clearly first time round.

Now you've clarified what you meant, seems as if the 'level playing field' you're referring to is making sure that countries that can manufacture more efficiently/cheaply than in the EU are penalised by higher tariffs. How would that apply to other non-EU countries who maybe cannot manufacture as cheaply as in the US but still have 10% import duty on their products?

So it sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand the issue here.

I did express it clearly enough the first time round - you're an intelligent bloke and I'm not going to patronise you by using play school language.

But your response seems to be deliberately inflammatory. America probably can manufacture more cheaply than Europe - it has the raw materials and the domestic market that we don't; that advantage is no reason why European manufacturers should let the US car industry effectively render them uneconomic. Hence the need for tariffs. But you know this perfectly well.

And you also know perfectly well that any Non EU country that could not manufacture as cheaply as the US probably would /should (by my logic - I don't pretend to know everything) have a different import duty.

And of course, your comment is exactly what applies to EU exports to the US. A base Jaguar XF costs £32k in the UK and $48k (£35k) in the US. Not such a big margin as the Fiesta one but the point is that European cars are relatively expensive in the US.

It's complicated - everything affects everything else. That seems to be the fundamental thing that the cake and eat it Brexit mentality seems not to understand.

I wish you'd be more pleasant when you argue. There's not much pro Brexit comment on here worth debating over apart from yours but you ruin it all by being deliberately disingenuous.

We'll have to disagree on your first effort as I really did not get your point. But fair play to you for saying what you did how you did above. And I appreciate the Brexit comment.

I make no apologies for going in hard in a debate or being blunt - Northern heritage. Not that it really helped for you to claim that I didn't know what I was saying - takes two to tango. In general I'm happy to have a good debate but if people get personal then they'll get it back with a bit of top spin on.

As for the tariffs - fair enough if a country is 'dumping' then by all means use them to stop abuse. I'm not sure that the US is doing that on cars or anything else. But regardless, non-EU countries pay the same import duty on a product unless there is a specific trade deal that reduces it (anti-dumping tariffs aside). Also European cars may be relatively expensive in the US but it isn't down to import duty - 2.5%: more likely that the makers know they can charge a premium in the US, just as some of the German car marques do in Europe.

But looking more widely at this, your point above in blue is where one of the fundamental point lies. Rather than tip the tables via tariffs, should the EU or anyone not be trying to compete better? Effectively what you are espousing is the Donald Trump mentality regarding international trade and competition (keeping it on topic...)

As for being disingenuous - that usually involves being insincere by pretending that you know less than you actually do. You sure that applies to me?

rjsterry

Gary Cohn, the head of the National Economic Council has now handed in his notice over the the threat of tariffs.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Gary Cohn, the head of the National Economic Council has now handed in his notice over the the threat of tariffs.

So basically, Donny will whittle all the remaining rational figures in every sphere from Economics to Security down to nothing and replace them with puppets and morons so he can carry on a jolly path to spouting absolute bollox unimpeded, surrounded by nodding heads all day long...

Good luck America - you're f*cked by your own volition.

rick_chasey

FWIW, Netflix added more to their market cap this year than the value of the entire publicly traded US steel sector.

Matthewfalle

watched Dotard's press conference with the Swedish pm last night.

dotard really is special.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW, Netflix added more to their market cap this year than the value of the entire publicly traded US steel sector.

Imagine if some populist had become prime minister in the '80s, promising to reopen the coal mines and the shipyards.

bianchimoon

And today stormy daniels is suing him saying the ‘hush’ agreement is null and void as he didn’t sign it

Matthewfalle

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... agreement/

trouble at mill, as they say.

lostboysaint

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/Filed%20Complaint.pdf

And she's alleging that she's got video and photographs.

bendertherobot

A Storm is Coming.....

So, he spoke to NK and told them to denuke. But was actually speaking to South Korea.

imposter2.0

lostboysaint wrote:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/Filed%20Complaint.pdf

And she's alleging that she's got video and photographs.

I would pay not to see that...

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

But looking more widely at this, your point above in blue is where one of the fundamental point lies. Rather than tip the tables via tariffs, should the EU or anyone not be trying to compete better?

But then you are in a race to the bottom - eg like with food at Supermarkets and that isn't a good thing either. It is one of those things which highlights how different America is to us (and therefore how much harder it would be to get a fair trade deal with them). Cars are cheap, petrol is cheap (it cost me the same amount of money to run a V8 Ford pickup truck over there as it would a Ford Focus over here!); we aren't the same so actually it would be a contrivance not to weight the import duties.

Meanwhile, back at Trump Towers - I'm glad "“So many people want to come in. I have a choice of anybody. I could take any position in the White House and I’ll have a choice of the 10 top people having to do with that position – everybody wants to be there.” - but I just can't understand why none of the top ten people ever seem to want to stay long and why he employed Cohn in the first place as presumably he isn't one of the top ten!

bianchimoon

Just on MSNBC, Trump has reversed his ban on Elephant and wild animal trophies from Africa, Dotards sons have got their way. He goes lower and lower

bianchimoon

Rolf F wrote:

Meanwhile, back at Trump Towers - I'm glad "“So many people want to come in. I have a choice of anybody. I could take any position in the White House and I’ll have a choice of the 10 top people having to do with that position – everybody wants to be there.” - but I just can't understand why none of the top ten people ever seem to want to stay long and why he employed Cohn in the first place as presumably he isn't one of the top ten!

Cohn was the most vocal critic against Trump's tariff plans and starting a trade war, now he's gone Navarro and Ross have Trump in their hands. Even cowards McConnel and Ryan can't get through to Trump to get him to stop going down this path. How Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee, the start of western world battling each other on the financial battlefield?

veronese68

bianchimoon wrote:

Just on MSNBC, Trump has reversed his ban on Elephant and wild animal trophies from Africa, Dotards sons have got their way. He goes lower and lower

They should legalise the hunting of trophy hunters, that should sort the problem out.

bompington

Veronese68 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Just on MSNBC, Trump has reversed his ban on Elephant and wild animal trophies from Africa, Dotards sons have got their way. He goes lower and lower

They should legalise the hunting of trophy hunters, that should sort the problem out.

The Trumpian solution would be to arm the animals

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

And today stormy daniels is suing him saying the ‘hush’ agreement is null and void as he didn’t sign it

and he can’t argue as he denied their existence in the first place.

veronese68

bompington wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Just on MSNBC, Trump has reversed his ban on Elephant and wild animal trophies from Africa, Dotards sons have got their way. He goes lower and lower

They should legalise the hunting of trophy hunters, that should sort the problem out.

The Trumpian solution would be to arm the animals

Of course, why didn't I think of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V3oT7BRiWo

kingstongraham

bianchimoon wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Meanwhile, back at Trump Towers - I'm glad "“So many people want to come in. I have a choice of anybody. I could take any position in the White House and I’ll have a choice of the 10 top people having to do with that position – everybody wants to be there.” - but I just can't understand why none of the top ten people ever seem to want to stay long and why he employed Cohn in the first place as presumably he isn't one of the top ten!

Cohn was the most vocal critic against Trump's tariff plans and starting a trade war, now he's gone Navarro and Ross have Trump in their hands. Even cowards McConnel and Ryan can't get through to Trump to get him to stop going down this path. How Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee, the start of western world battling each other on the financial battlefield?

As I understand it, Congress has control of tariffs, but voted to give the President the powers to change them a while back. They can vote to take those powers back, but there would not be enough Democrats willing to oppose the tariff increase to get a veto proof vote through.

Meanwhile... this doesn't look good for poor little Jared http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... al-counsel

The problem for reporters is that the administration and their facilitators in the Republicans don't care at all about conflicts of interest any more.